Friday, October 05, 2007

(Semi-)Hiatus

For the last 408 days, this blog has had (at least) a daily post on the lacrosse case. Today’s is the final such post. For the next several weeks, I’ll be doing weekly posts to wrap up some of the themes and events of the blog as new developments (civil suit negotiations, the election) warrant. These posts will appear on Mondays, through October and into November.

Some stats:

The blog had 1,099 posts, totaling 870,364 words. (That number would translate into roughly 2,500 published pages.) These posts generated over 90,000 comments. Some comments were intellectually dubious; a few were vile. Most, however, came from people knowledgeable about the case, and provided insight not only for me but for other readers.

I first noticed this case because of the Group of 88’s ad. Published on April 6, 2006, it unequivocally declared that something happened to Crystal Mangum and publicly expressed thanks to protesters who had carried “castrate” banners and blanketed the campus with “wanted” posters. Such a document betrayed the signatories’ duties as professors to defend due process and seek the dispassionate evaluation of evidence. My subsequent discovery that none of the departments listed on the ad as endorsing its contents actually voted to do so, a basic violation of academic protocol, only heightened the impropriety of the statement.

Because I was following the case more closely than I might otherwise have been, I read the entire Coleman Committee report when it was published, on May 1, 2006. The document demolished the caricature of the lacrosse players so gleefully provided by elements in the media and activist faculty. It was also clear by that date that—even if a rape occurred—Mike Nifong had indicted a demonstrably innocent person, since Reade Seligmann was videotaped someplace else at the time of the alleged “crime.”

I was startled to see that relatively few people seemed to care that Seligmann’s indictment flowed from Nifong ordering the police to run a lineup that violated their own procedures. Indeed, for months, reputable figures suggested that Nifong must have something in reserve, as if a veteran prosecutor would have chosen to massively violate procedures if he actually had a case.

The situation, as we know now, was much worse than anyone could have known: like Seligmann, Collin Finnerty had unimpeachable electronic evidence that he was not at the party at the only time the “crime” could have occurred. Finnerty’s attorney, Wade Smith, kept this information quiet, fearful that releasing it would prompt Nifong to try and change the timeline—as, indeed, the ex-DA tried to do in response to Seligmann’s alibi.

That such a procedural monstrosity lasted for as long as it did is horrifying. Even more horrifying, however, is that it occurred with the implicit and sometimes explicit support of the institutions that we think of as defenders of civil liberties—elements in the media, civil rights groups, and academics. By this stage, few should be surprised at the continued refusal to apologize of most in the Group of 88 (and other anti-lacrosse extremists, such as Orin Starn or Peter Wood): they staked their reputations on their performance in this case, and were found wanting. Duke alums and trustees should take account of their behavior, and also the Brodhead administration’s unwillingness to confront the faculty extremists in its midst.

Similarly, newspapers such as the New York Times and Durham Herald-Sun appeared to view it as their responsibility to prop up Nifong’s case rather the traditional journalistic goal of exposing governmental misconduct. And the North Carolina NAACP repudiated the legacy of Thurgood Marshall as it functioned as an organization devoted to little more than race-baiting.

As for the blog itself: it was more work than I had expected. I also failed to anticipate the unwillingness of some—especially in the media and at Duke—to alter course even when confronted with facts of the case. Indeed, the reverse occurred: people like Group of 88’er Cathy Davidson, hardly the most extreme member of the Group, invented a reality that never existed to rationalize both the ad and the activist faculty’s dubious behavior.

I am grateful to those who spoke to me, on or off the record, to better my understanding of Durham politics, or conditions at Duke, or legal matters, or the proper role of a SANE nurse. These sources improved my writing and helped me avoid many errors. All remaining errors, of course, were my responsibility.

Over the course of the blog, I repeatedly requested comment from Mike Nifong and from those Durham Police officers (Mark Gottlieb, David Addison) whose behavior in the case was dubious. None ever replied. At Duke, however, John Burness always answered my questions, while Dean Sue Wasiolek and Group of 88 member Lee Baker sometimes did so, even though each doubtless understood that my perspective on the case was strongly critical of the Group and increasingly critical of the administration. I am grateful to them for the professionalism with which they treated me.

Finally, I would like to thank all who read the blog over the course of the past 18 months.

The first of the “blog epilogue” posts will appear on Monday, and I hope that readers will continue to drop by from time to time.

180 comments:

Grateful Duke Alum
said...

As a Duke alum (E98) -- sincerest thanks for all that you have done to shine a light and disinfect my beloved school. I've been a daily reader for 9 months now.

I read no other blogs and will definitely miss the daily insight into the crazy worlds. Given that even to this date Duke professors are still on the wrong side of the fence, I can't imagine not having some DIW commentary waiting.

I had never read a blog - let alone comment on one - before DIW. You've done a tremendously good service with this blog and, along with Stuart Taylor, with UPI. I've truly enjoyed and learned much from this blog and from UPI. I look forward to dropping by from time to time.

Best of luck in Israel and in all of your future endeavors.

p.s. I suspect that living and working in a new country will seem like a vacation compared to the last year; you've earned a break!

You have restored some of my confidence in the notion that justice will be done...or at least the notion that there are those among us who believe that justice should be done. I have learned a great deal from you over the last several months and have enjoyed your commentary and chronicle.

God speed and best wishes!

Tom Inman

PS...please let us know of your observations in Israel, ...especially the future of history (ha) !

Many thanks for sharing your work on the blog, KC. The Good Old Days of Journalism are coming to an end. What's rising up is sure to have plusses and minuses, but D-i-W has showcased some of the positive features of Citizen Journalism.

Anyone who wants to stay current with KC's less-frequent postings should consider subscribing to RSS or another "feed" service. For instance, "Google Reader" adds a link to each new D-i-W post to my Google home page as soon as the post is up.

A college professor, KC Johnson, proved to be the best journalist covering the cold-blooded frame of the lacrosse players. He reported news, broke news, wrote brilliant news analyses and commentary, putting the events in perspective. He did all of this in a civil manner, in the face of some commenters who were trying to undermine and destroy his influential blog. The second best journalistic performance in this watershed legal case was by Joe Neff of the Raleigh News & Observer. Neff's terrific reporting almost made up for his newspaper's dreadful and damaging coverage in March 2006, coverage that influenced the national media. Expect to hear more, much more, from the brilliant Professor Johnson in the years ahead.

KC - Thank you for giving so much of yourself to this cause for so many months. You have been absolutely amazing... an inspiration. I'll be forever grateful for having had the chance to interact. May our paths cross again soon....

Good luck KC. This is the first blog I have ever read on a daily basis. After a couple of months it was a bit like Cheers (where everyone knows your name). Your post were insightful, mostly accurate, and very timely. Though I did not contribute often, I also enjoyed some of the banter and jokes that occasionally appreared in the comment section.

The death-grip that faculty like the 88 have in colleges and universities across our land, will not disappear. It has taken them some 35 years to come to power--it'll take 100 to remove them. Most of the voices that have been warning us about this for decades, have been conservative, so I'm glad that your voice has been added to the choir.

Very nice summary. I'm sure that many of us would like to keep up with what you're doing in Israel and I'll assume that you'll be doing some kind of blog on your work there. A weekly post should work out well though I hope that the moderation will not be done that infrequently.

I'm going to miss you, KC. You've been a knight in shining armor for the players, and a paragon of commonsense and rectitude for those of us who've watched your mind at work these last 408 days.

I just received my back ordered copy of Until Proven Innocent from Amazon today! While I read it, my jones for this blog will be pushed back a bit. But afterwards, I'll have the shakes for weeks, I'm sure.

Professor Johnson,This blog has been absolutely stunning in exposing this hoax, analyzing the hoax and explaining it to others. I had been dubious about the impact that blogs could have on the way we get our news, this blog has made a believer of me in the power of blogs.

I only wish there was someone like you around for the Haditha Marines - they need it.

Keith in South Carolina -- is there really anything to be gained by prosecuting Crystal Mangum? iirc, the charge would be a misdemeanor with a max $500 fine. Her medical records were 10 inches thick and there seems to be little question that she has mental problems. What, really, would be the point?

I'd rather see social services take a look at her history and protect her children from her (if what we've heard is true of course).

Thank you, K.C., for everything you've done -- for the words you've written, for the hours of sleep you've missed; for the insights you've shared; and for your determination to bring a frightening situation to a better end. I will miss you on a daily basis, but I'll look forward to Mondays. Stay safe.

When M. Nifong decided to push forward with this scam and R. Brodhead assumed he could get away with anything, little did they know that a World-Historic Champion of Polemics was taking notice. I have never witnessed, in my entire life, the sort of sustained virtuousity displayed in this Blog. It is especially breath-taking if one looks up the early posts and sees that there were no responses at all; apparently no one was listening. But KC persisted. Fast forward to the quite amazing book revues coming from the Economists and the NYTs. For my own reasons, I have never been able to be objective about this case. Nonetheless, this Uber-Blog is for the ages, by any measure.

Seriously, KC you deserve a Pulitzer Prize for your work here. I was only vaguely aware of the Duke case when I followed a link here from Instapundit. (The best generalist blog linking to the best "specialist" blog.)

No one working in dead tree media has come close to the devotion, attention, and intelligence you have show here.

Best of Luck in Israel and DON'T BE A STRANGER! As others above have said, you should continue blogging, regardless of subject. You are obviously a natural!

KC,God Bless you. I read where you have just sold the rights to HBO for a movie. Please tell me you have some control over the content. Those people are not to be trusted. On the bright side. God works in funny ways. When you give for nothing, you always get. I hope you an Taylor can retire off your good works. Or at least go back to school and become a Republican, Ha Ha.

Honesty, commitment, and courage is how I would characterize what you embarked on and accomplished with this blog. I do not believe that the fate of these young men would have turned out as they have had it not been for your work here. However, what is far from over is the moral corruption within the media and academia that you exposed and has still gone unpunished and unresolved. Hopefully there will be more K.C. Johnson who take up that cause. God bless.

As for the blog itself: it was more work than I had expected. I also failed to anticipate the unwillingness of some—especially in the media and at Duke—to alter course even when confronted with facts of the case.

KC,You did have the foresight to name the blog Durham in Wonderland. Every step of the way the 'unwilling' lived up to that description.

Thank you for giving us an inside view of what is becoming of modern university education.

Thank you for demonstrating how MSM can participate in the most glaring example of yellow journalism in this century.

Thank you for helping (along with Liestoppers and JinC and others) to show the legal system for what it has apparently been for a long, long time: a gigantic hoax. Nifong is like the pig who got caught altering the sign: it took an army of judges and police to construct this hoax, a collaboration, and it shows how deep and fedid the swamp's become.

KC: Thank you for your blog and the book. I had no association with the boys or Duke and stumbled on your site as a lacrosse fan trying to make sense of the shocking allegations. I consider myself very conservative, so I'm quite shaken to acknowledge the misdeeds of the prosecutor, police, and university - all of which I never expected. I've learned to take a more critical view of media reports, and this blog has exposed me to alternate sources of news and commentary. So thank you for your efforts, I sincerley appreciate them.

I shall dismiss any future historians of the higher learning who do not bow humbly in your direction and give you the credit you deserve for having tirelessly exposed the deep thinkers at Duke (and elsewhere) as the dangerous (and often vile) gas bags they are.

I suspect that legions of other posters on this blog also recognize the signal service you have performed in providing a rallying point for many of us dissenters -- folks who hitherto had little opportunity and even less encouragement to say "nay" to those who have hastened the decline of our once great universities.

And I'm confident that years down the road the Kristin Butlers and Stephen Millers at Duke and elsewhere will reiterate how important you were to them. Even the brave occasionally need to know that a Spartan stands foursquare behind them.

As a PhD student and soon to be professor your daily writings and learning about your tenure battle has given me a lot to consider. While not your goal, feel good that I will be a better professor b/c of your blog. Thanks.Teach1975

Thanks KC, what we have seen is a miracle. I hope to repay your efforts through actions to ensure that this type of injustice isn't perpetrated on anyone again.

"...Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children..."

For those who think we are no different than a rock in the yard, rest easy. The quote isn't biblical, it's Tarrantino spoken through the character Jules played by Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction.

We all have a moral obligation to remove from positions of trust those who do us and especially our children harm.

Of course the following lines from Pulp Fiction also resonate with me as the scene was an excellent reminder of how very close the young men came to losing it all at the hands of too many evil people.

For those unfamiliar Jules and Vincent survive unscatherd after someone enters a room with a 9mm shooting toward them at point blank range. All the shots miss them. Jules and Vincent are hit men and were in the room to collect from a drug dealer who was holding back profits.

"Jules: This was Divine Intervention! You know what "divine intervention" is?

Vincent: Yeah, I think so. That means God came down from Heaven and stopped the bullets.

Jules: Yeah, man, that's what it means. That's exactly what it means! God came down from Heaven and stopped the bullets.

Vincent: I think we should be going now.

Jules: Don't do that! Don't you fucking do that! Don't blow this shit off! What just happened was a fucking miracle!

Vincent: Chill the fuck out, Jules, this shit happens.

Jules: Wrong! Wrong, this shit doesn't just happen.

Vincent: Do you wanna continue this theological discussion in the car, or at the jailhouse with the cops?

Jules: We should be fuckin' dead now, my friend! We just witnessed a miracle, and I want you to fucking acknowledge it!

Dear KCYour true scholarship evident in this blog has been a shining beacon. Some mornings when I logged on to read the latest, I was simply in awe of the length, detail, fact checking, and clear writing that was evident in the post. And then the next day you would do it all over again. And again. And again.

That beacon was in sharp contrast to the dismaying lack of scholarship (as well as probably the some of the worst writing I have ever read- I have never been able to understand a written word by Lubiano and Holloway...) among the 88 and their ilk -- how fitting that the most recent dishonesty by Prof. Starn was highlighted in the post preceding this one.

Even more important, the fruits of your scholarship were not just the praise from your readers and colleagues, but your efforts helped exonerate three innocent young college students, and hopefully will lead to real reform in the NC justice system that will help many others.

I just couldn't believe any of this was true, and in searching for more information, stumbled onto your blog many, many months ago. It has been a lifeline to the truth, and the truth has won out. You have provided an amazing service not only to the Duke Lax team, most especially Dave, Reade and Collin and their families, but also to the entire world. Your passion for pursuing the truth and uncovering the injustice in this case will be held up as the standard to follow in the future.

I have become addicted, as have so many others, to D in W, so will definitely suffer some withdrawal! But you are most deserving of time away, and the pursuit of new adventures as you head to Israel!! Bon Voyage and best of luck!! God Bless You!!!!

There's not much I can add to what others have said. In the best tradition of speaking truth to power, you have indeed done much to save three young men from seeing their lives in ruin.

I think you've also opened up a conversation about the state of higher education today that needed to be had. Although I think many of the regular commenters here are too quickly and broadly generalizing from the behavior of the G88, there is no doubt that the sort of issues their actions have raised are ones that are present in many colleges and universities to one degree or another. And they are issues that need more public conversation - hopefully of the civil and constructive sort that has been DiW at its best.

Have a great experience in Israel. I'm actually supposed to be in Jerusalem for week in January, so perhaps we'll compare notes.

Thank you again for your tireless and amazing work that has shown the world the best of the professoriate even as you exposed some of its worst behavior.

KC> Ditto all of the above, been following since near beginning, never blogged. I have often thought of the question posed as an assignment one summer to my kids. They had to write a paper supporting their position.

The question was: Can one person make a difference? I think there are many examples that support, yes, one person can make a difference. You are the most prominent of late. You have made a huge difference in the lives of many people. Most notably the three innocent boys. I too believe you saved their lives. You kept that light shining, you sought the truth. My family, and we are a lax family(not Duke related) has been scratching their head as to why I would continue to read this blog. Even at this late date. For me it's because the three boys could be my sons, or the sons of many of our friends> framed and railroaded by the political world around them. I really think your book should be handed out to high school sophomores and their parents. It will go a long way to dispel their expectations of many college campus's across the country. Some of the events at Duke are specific to certain individuals, but what happened could easily happen again. It's a cautionary tale that should never be forgotten. College administrators and professors can't necessarily be counted on protect you as a student or have your best interest at heart.So many thoughts to convey> with deep gratitude for all the work you have done. I hope the weekly blog is enough, but any other posts, don't change the name, I'll never be cool enough to find the next site! All the best KC. Yes, one person can make a huge difference.

You have spontaneously changed history for these three young men and their families! Your research was GENIUS - your motives were pure - and your words, always eloquent. You have exposed terrible wrongs and helped to set them right - that will not be forgotten!! Much Gratitude and Best of Luck in ALL of your endeavors,Reade's Aunt D.

Few history professors have the opportunity to make history themselves. This was your moment, and your tireless efforts have benefited so many people (including me!) and will continue to do so, I'm sure. You're a mensch!

K.C.--thanks for everything. You're the greatest. Have a wonderful trip to Israel, and by all means please share with us your take on the situation over there. Best wishes to you in all your future endeavors. I join Bill Anderson in a virtual, prolonged, standing ovation.--Bob Hyde, Duke '67

Professor Johnson,Thank you for your invaluable research and analysis and your commitment to intellectual honesty. I stand in awe of your contribution. You represent the best of the blogosphere and the professoriate.

I am struck by the resemblance of this case to the Dreyfuss Affair that rocked France almost a century ago. A false accusation, vicious and vile in itself, revealed the corruption, rot and racism that had spread through major institutions of a society.

Like Debrah, I have gone into deep mourning, nearly clinical depression, as you go away, KC. I am already in withdrawal from my hourly fixes at DIW. Keeping in touch is not an option ---- I feel you and your work in my heart every time I think of those young men. What a fine man you are. Good luck and happiness.

We are impressed with President Richard Brodhead's continued attempts to reach out to all members of the Duke community to promote healing and reconciliation in the wake of last year's lacrosse incident, as evidenced by his recent remarks at the Duke School of Law. We are disheartened, however, by the continued drumbeat of destructive criticism of the administration and faculty by some within and outside the Duke community. More importantly, as chairs of two of the five committees that examined various issues brought to light by the lacrosse incident last spring, we take issue with the biased and inaccurate rhetoric espoused by some of these critics.

Firstly, we reject the characterization put forward by critics like Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson that the Lacrosse Committee report, that examined the past behavior of the lacrosse team, is a "stunning vindication" of the team (Washington Post, September 7, 2007). On the contrary, the report very carefully details a pattern of behavior that the committee characterized as "socially irresponsible" that should "have been a cause for alarm." Dismissing this finding as trivial is a biased and unjustified misrepresentation of the facts.

Secondly, there is a recurring theme advanced by critics like Taylor and Johnson that the faculty at Duke and at other universities are increasingly a bunch of ideologues who care less about the their students and more about promoting their own extremist agendas. Nothing could be further from the truth. Faculty at Duke, as at other universities and colleges, care deeply about students and are passionately committed to their personal and intellectual growth. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the daily life of a faculty member will quickly appreciate the time, effort and energy that faculty put into teaching, advising and mentoring students. To suggest otherwise, on the basis of isolated and selective incidents that occur over the course of complex events and are taken out of context, is nothing more than a tragic rush to judgment.

James ColemanProfessor of the Practice of LawDuke School of Law

Prasad KasibhatlaAssociate ProfessorNicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences

KC, thank you! I read your postings almost everyday and truly appreciate all your work. I purchased UPI because of this blog and must say it is an excellent and important book.

A few words of caution to my fellow readers/posters:

I grew up in Durham. My father graduated from Duke and I spent a lot of time on Duke's campus as a kid. I have known quite a few Duke professors through my father, through my school friends whose parents were professors, and at least one former teacher who is now a Duke professor. I went to university elsewhere and have traveled around the country quite a bit during my career.

What's my point? Durham and Duke are not very different from most cities and universities in this country. This hoax could have happened anywhere.

Don't believe me? Consider the press coverage of this case. Almost uniformly horrible no matter where the news outlet was located. Spend a day at various universities. It does not matter if you are at Columbia, University of Chicago. Berkeley or even the University of Texas you will find the same race/gender/class meta-narrative that is espoused by the G88 and the same fear/tolerance of those professors from the other professors and administrations.

If you think Nifong, the Durham PD and the corrupt judges who allowed this travesty to continue are aberrations then I suggest you go to this web address, www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php, and look at the list of states. North Carolina is not over represented. Those working in the legal profession enjoy a protection that none of the rest of us have. If you have a complaint against them you cannot get away from other lawyers in your quest for justice. The legal system protects it own which allows for Nifongs.

You and your children are not safe just because you do not live in Durham, North Carolina.

Job well done KC. I hope you have found this blog gig to be satisfying and worth your time and trouble (and the personal attacks!). We readers out here, who are interested in unvarnished information, not some metanarrative or bad reporting, would never have had the actual story and the context without your work.

I second the request that KC start a new "Wonderland" blog to report on the spineless PC and other rediculous actions that pop up waaaaay too often in Academia.

I'll miss your daily posts very much, and I'm looking forward to reading UPI, once Amazon finally sends my order to me -- you really should take your publisher to task for not printing enough copies for the initial run. Good luck with your future endeavors!

I am honored to have been allowed to comment here and really want to thank you for your front page mention of one of my comments.

Proud to have been a small part of DiW.

Thank you so much for your efforts! Best wishes and thanks for all you have done.

If you should happen to run into Rabbi Raphael Groner in Israel give him my regards. He and i grew up together and I studied a bit of Talmudic law under his father. You know the "whose ox is gored" bit.

Good luck.

BTW here are some bits you can look forward to when you get to Israel.

KC, thanks so much for your interest in this case. Since I don't live in Durham, nor the south, nor do I have a child at Duke, I came here, for information, as my local news did not cover it. Thank you for all your research, and for having a forum where anyone could participate.

It's interesting that KC yet again said "The [Coleman report] demolished the caricature of the lacrosse players," while James Coleman just released an op-ed in today's Chronicle criticizing KC:

"Firstly, we reject the characterization put forward by critics like Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson that the Lacrosse Committee report, that examined the past behavior of the lacrosse team, is a 'stunning vindication' of the team (Washington Post, September 7, 2007). On the contrary, the report very carefully details a pattern of behavior that the committee characterized as 'socially irresponsible' that should 'have been a cause for alarm.' Dismissing this finding as trivial is a biased and unjustified misrepresentation of the facts."http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/10/05/Letters/Criticism.Of.Brodhead.Faculty.Disheartening-3015368.shtml

He also criticizes KC for advancing the theme that "universities are increasingly a bunch of ideologues who care less about the their students and more about promoting their own extremist agendas."

Overall, I personally think KC has done a great job with the blog spending countless hours researching the case. However, like Dr. Coleman, I agree that Dr. Johnson's arguments have occasionally left out key information and been somewhat biased - but who isn't biased in today's world?

I generally share all of KC's critical stances vs Nifong, Durham PD, and the city of Durham, as well as much of the criticism targeted toward the Group of 88. However, I am less critical of the administration and I believe that fewer people think Brodhead did a terrible job than you might think. It was a lose-lose situation. Was he perfect? Clearly not, and he has acknowledged that. The season had to be canceled though, Pressler should have kept his job, and everything else Brodhead did, in my opinion, was appropriate, although he probably should have shown more direct support for the players and clarified to the community that the Group of 88 didn't speak for the entire Duke faculty (which he acknowledges in his apology).

It'll be interesting to see whether KC acknowledges the criticism from Coleman in his post on Monday...

You have earned the trust and admiration of many of us who have wondered if there were any left in the academic world worthy of such.

Trust, once earned in one arena, is easily transferred into another. And unless it is lost by abuse or default, can be an ongoing opportunity for good in this needy world.

I would hope that all the accolades coming your way now and those yet to come would not turn your head from the humble search for truth.

My Latin-scholar husband tells me that in the days of Roman rule, as the conquering hero rode his chariot into the city while the masses cheered, a slave stood beside him whicpering in his ear "Sic transit gloria mundi".

Roughly translated: "The glory of the world is transient".

While I would give you hugs(that's the way the sweet little ole Republican women in NC express their admiration), and flowers, and accolades for all your brilliant and heroic work, I just hope you will continue to hold on to your intellectual integrity until the day you die. Perhaps the second-most tragic revelation of this whole episode has been the exposing of formerly brilliant scholars and intellectual giants who lost it somewhere along the road.

We, your grateful constituency, want to see you persevere to the end.

And I, for one, would very much appreciate the honor of being able to continue to follow your work in other arenas... especially in Israel, if you should care to share your time and thoughts with us.

Like others, I stumbled onto this blog while looking for information about the LAX/ DUKE case. Ever since the first day my moring routine has been altered because it was coffee, DIW, chores, DIW, lunch, DIW, busines, DIW, etc. I perceive, from reading the site, that I am not the only one. First thing in morning, updates at noon, last thing at night. From my office came occasional laughter, frequent moans, and expletives unbecoming of a grandmother. I've stomped out of several Barnes and Nobles after giving the manager a piece of my mind, and urged UPI on everyone who would listen. My 38 year old son said "Mom, what is it in this that has you so caught up"? And all I could do was to try to tell him that I believed it was a chance, a narrow window, to recapture Duke, and there was one man who was outstanding among many others, who was leading the charge.. and it was KC Johnson.

You have restored my hope that genuine dialogue can be had among truth-seekers from diverging viewpoints, as long as integrity undergirds the process.

I know it is presumptuous to make two entries today, with all the many notable scholars, lawyers, and others who are saluting you. But I just felt I had to remind you of the Roman hero, because I feel you are, at this moment, such a person.

Professor Johnson--many thanks for a superb job of reporting, analyzing and commenting on a truly shameful episode in American jurisprudence and education. I really believe there would have been much less justice in this case without your work.And your work proves, again, that the truth is strange enough--you can't make this stuff up.

Dear KC,The "birth" of DIW has proven to show what real journalism truly is.Yes, one person can make a tremendous difference, and you have been a perfect example for others to follow. I personally hate to see you go! There is still much to uncover, and is sad that several million people have read your site, yet OUR "Government" still lingers in denial, and fears what other truths will be brought to light. You have shown the nation how rampant corruption is within our system, and is still up to each of us to continue to fight for what is right. Instead of the numerous officials lurking on blog boards, they should be moved into action! We still await a Federal Investigation, and must continue to move forward to ensure there will indeed be reform. You lifted the lid of Pandora's box, and gave the world a peek into the abject corrosion of our legal system. Three young men and their families I am sure are forever grateful for all of the support they have been given, yet MANY other families such as mine and Janet Araboa's, still have yet to see our loved ones cases solved. Durham has become the Gaza Strip of the USA, and the war is not yet over! Thank you for paving the way for us! I pray you will be back, and am looking forward to seeing what the future holds for you, and us. May God look over you, and know that this is not the end, only the beginning of a new chapter.Thanks for the memories, it has been a bumpy ride!Respectfully,Rhonda FlemingCleveland, Ohio

From reading some of the comments, I think many of us have actually fallen in love with KC.

Wonderland has really been a serendipitous experience. It's amazing how visiting a website a few times turned into a daily obsession/addiction......because of KC's remarkable creativity and his own obsession with the truth.

His blog has always been numero uno.

(BTW......many of you are interested in the idea of casting the upcoming HBO film. The News & Observer--today's "Life, etc." section--has a place where you can submit your suggestions. That should keep you busy for a while!)

KC, your blog is journalism at its best. It has raised the standards for blogs, with its careful factchecking and links to sources. I want to thank you for your hard and excellent work, and you've truly made a difference.

I have been a silent reader of all the posts and the comments for many months and have been impressed by many of the commentators. Your practice of deleting vicious posts is appreciated by many, I am sure. I am part of the way through your book and just finished the part with the email replies from Houston Baker. It is truly unbelievable that any person who writes such vile material is an "acclaimed professor" first at Duke and now at Vanderbilt.

As a Duke alum ('92), I thank you, KC. As a fellow published author, I salute you. I started reading Until Proven Innocent, and I seem to be finding new information on every well-written page, something I didn't think possible since I've followed this case so closely.

...[T]here is a recurring theme advanced by critics like Taylor and Johnson that the faculty at Duke and at other universities are increasingly a bunch of ideologues who care less about the their students and more about promoting their own extremist agendas. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm glad I've never said anything nice about Prof. Coleman. I will say he is a loyal soldier; not a friendly one, though. He's a lawyer; he represents the client who pays him.

I am sure Prof. Coleman and others are wanting to distance themselves from any appearances of being swayed into KC's corner. They have to live with their colleagues while KC moves on.

I do not doubt that there are still a SILENT MAJORITY of good teachers still at Duke. I do not doubt that they sincerely care about their students.

I just wonder why they let Prof. Coleman do their talking for them, when the 88 GANG spoke loud and clear for themselves and presumed to represent most of the university.

It doesn't matter how "good" you are and how much you love your students if you don't speak up when they need you.

Perhaps it is because academics have not functioned much in the real world that they did not know how to engage controversy as well as the 88 did. If nothing else, the past 1 1/2 years at Duke has waked up some sleepy professors to a world that they mostly just read about and assign papers to their students to read about, but never really engage.

Academics, by and large, don't like to get their hands dirty. This case got everybody into the sand box where some just sat on their hands while others threw dirt. Either way, everybody got dirty.

To not speak, when speaking is mandated by the circumstances is cowardly. The "good" professors at Duke may love their students and be quite committed to their education. But they were cowardly when their students needed them. And I will NEVER be convinced that such was not the case with Brodhead and his backer, Steele. I am saddened, but not surprised, by Prof. Coleman's letter. Once he drew a line in the sand. It seems that he is now trying to erase the line.

"James Coleman just released an op-ed in today's Chronicle criticizing KC:"

Coleman is mentioned by name as a hero by KC, the "great satan" of the Duke campus left. James Coleman is also a professor at Duke.

He wants to keep his job.He wants to keep getting promotions.He doesn't want his office moved to the basement.He doesn't want other faculty members keying his car.He doesn't want to eat lunch alone for the rest of his life.

K.C., Your intelligent clear mind is a shining light. Your steadiness and sense of humor made the disgusting palatable. What you did here in DIW is disclosed the skeleton of how so much of the world works. I could follow and understand each detail and know what is beneath the fog of organizations - be it the colleges or the senate. It makes me want to cook for you. Grateful for all time and wishes for your health and safety and happiness and continued scholarship. Please, please keep blogging about anything. My computer won't make the letter that comes between u and w so know that I lo e you. and your bowties. Suz

You must understand, even though we are very different personalities, KC has one thing in common with the Diva: sincerity.

You may not like what I say sometimes; however, it's a candid and an honest opinion. No tap dancing around and wasting the time of others with obfuscation. And more often than not, that candor ends up being the truth.

KC is very honest and his aim and objectives in this case have always been pure.

Unfortunately, he took for granted that some of the players in this saga---some he has even called "heroes"---were the same.

From the start, I have rejected using the word "hero" on anyone. People either did the right thing or they didn't. No real harm--except the potential harm to Reade, Collin, and David--was going to come to anyone just by doing the right thing.

If James Coleman indeed signed his name to such a repulsive set of statements above---long after all that we know to be the truth---then this speaks volumes about his true character.

As I have opined, there are some people in KC's book who should not have been highlighted to the degree that they were.

I only hope that in casting the film, Coleman's role reflects his true character and his disgusting 180--(although, I don't think he ever held the mindset that KC lavished on him)--as he has so vividly displayed.

And yes, I find that sad.

Is this just part of the Liberal disease? Always having to deify a person who is black....even if his/her role is merely one of not doing harm like the Gang of 88?

It would seem so in this case.

I said from the beginning: Coleman could have spoken out much more than he did to Brodhead and Duke's administration.

I quote from p. 209, of Until Proven Innocent, the book that Stuart Taylor and I co-authored on the case:

"The [Coleman] committee issued its twenty-five page report on May 1, the first day of final exams. It demolished the negative stereotypes of the players that Nifong. much of the media, the Group of 88, and Duke administrators (less egregiously) had worked so hard to establish. But the media largely ignored the report's highly positive major findings. Those who reported on it at all triumphantly highlighted its conclusion that the laxers got drunk too often. Relying on statistics provided by Dean Bryan--and later challenged by parents as misleading--the report said that the lacrosse players drank more than most Duke students, or at least athletes, and had a disproportionate percentage of alcohol-related citations from Durham police. But it also noted that all of these alleged offenses were routine matters such as holding an open beer container, underage drinking, or making too much noise: "Their typical conduct has not been different in character than the conduct of the typical Duke student who abuses alcohol. [Durham Police Captain Ed] Sarvis said lacrosse players did not represent a special or unique problem . . . in fact, none of the houses rented by lacrosse players was . . . among the top 10 houses about which neighbors complained the most.'"

"Alcohol aside, the Coleman Committee's portrayal of the lacrosse players could hardly have contrasted more dramatically with Nifong's ("hooligans") and Brodhead's ("racist language," "disorderly," allusions to slavemasters and sexism). The committee said the players had no record before March 13 of bullying, fighting, racist talk, hostility toward women, cheating, or other serious misconduct."

Chronicle readers can judge for themselves whether this description is an unjustified misrepresentation of the facts; the full committee's report remains on the Duke website, and I urge people to read it.

[It is worth noting that the committee's report occurred before it came to light that Duke had endorsed the Durham Police Department's official policy of disproportionately punishing Duke students for minor offenses for which all other Durham residents received no official punishment--a policy that certainly casts a different light on the arrest records of all Duke students, including lacrosse players.]

As to whether the criticism of the faculty who chose to advance their own pedagogical, ideological, or personal agendas on the backs of their own school's students in this case represents a "rush to judgment": my blog has done 158 posts on faculty-related matters, over the past 18 months. If Profs. Coleman and Kasibhatla do not feel that sufficient information about the Group of 88's conduct has come to light to render a fair judgment, I hope that they'll endorse the call I made several weeks ago in the Chronicle in June (http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/06/21/Columns/Due-Process.For.The.88-2917428.shtml ) urging a Coleman Committee-like review of the Duke faculty's response to the lacrosse affair, not for the purpose of punishment, but for the purpose of learning from the mistakes of the case.

Finally, while some Duke professors (Starn, Holsti) have appeared to question the need for Pres. Brodhead's apology, I described it in a blog post the next day as "a powerful and emotional address, one that touched on several important points in an impressive fashion."

Your point is noted; after all, James Coleman's own words speak for themselves, and he can provide his own clarifications and intent. I, for one, however, believe he has received far too much credit for any role positive role in addressing the harmful treatment of the lacrosse players.

Like so many in this case, Coleman tried to walk a fine line, ever mindful he had to return to the hallowed halls with these unprincipled, hateful, radical racists. The necessary response was to be forceful, clear and unambiguous, strident in objecting to the wrongs of both the district attorney and the university; James Coleman, in my opinion, failed in that regard. There NEVER should have been any committee to study the lacrosse players past behavior, academic performance or disciplinary actions. From the outset, Duke should have taken sight on Nifong and made sure that justice, fairness and due process was served. It may be one reason the rest of the faculty has been so mealy mouthed; it may be why the administration has put forth such a spineless attitude; why the board and everyone else directly associated with Duke failed to fight fire with fire. When they looked at the tepidness of his so-called pro student position, it hardly inspired confidence among those who felt things were going badly to speak out.

Duke University is such a lousy place, with so many nasty, gutless people, it is astounding

KC is too good of a human being to be in the world of academia as it exists today.

All of us have been reading him for a very long time. I came to Wonderland last November 21st, the day before my birthday.

I remember that I was very sleepy on that day....having stayed up late reading his posts.

Nothing he has ever written about the Gang of 88 cannot be proven with facts. It's appalling that someone like Coleman would come out now and try to say that this isn't true.

Perhaps it's just a CYA move now that the civil suits have begun to take shape. Coleman wants to stay firmly in Brodhead's camp.

We all know how professors' spouses tend to play a role. A current student at Duke's law school told me that Coleman was a very good professor; however, his wife who also holds a position there was not. He said she was not very significant at all.....and without Coleman, she wouldn't even be there.

So.......everyone wants to secure their positions for the future.

I wish Coleman had shown himself earlier. It would have made things less disgusting now.

Your blog has been an amazing experience for all your readers. The daily posts will be sincerely missed but hopefully you will continue writing (even in a more limited fashion) so your faithful can continue to enjoy the breadth and brillance of your insights. I feel like a treasured pal is going away...Good luck and Thanks!

KC - Your insights will be missed by many. Your's is one of the first things I would read each morning to see the latest on the Duke case and the rampant PC'ism running through higher education, something I despised when I dealt with it almost 20 years ago. Best of luck in the future and I'll be sure to check in now and again to see how things have progressed.

KC...the tears well in my eyes at the thought of this DIW blog shutting down. You have been such an inspiration to all of us that so beleived in the truth of these players. Your fairness and dedication to our boys has made us all stronger. Not sure how we all would have managed in those early, dark days without your help. Keep us updated.

It's a mystery why Crystal hasn't been prosecuted for her many crimes. I agree she should be but don't consider K.C.'s position to be vile. It may be a lost cause. Direct your anger toward the Attorney General who hopes to be governor or toward the folks at the Justice Department who refuse to get involved.

****To Scott'66 at 9:34am

You say the hoax could have happened anywhere. I'm not sure. I've lived in Cambridge, MA and have spent much time at Harvard. The faculty may be similarly radical but the faculty actually like their students. Also, I doubt the police department and the DA's office would have behaved like their counterparts in Durham. For one thing they're smarter and if they're going to frame someone they'll do a better job. Remember the Nanny case and also the Amirault Day Care railroading. It took Dorothy Rabinowitz (WSJ) years to move toward justice.

James Coleman is a hero - Doubt he is worried about his job, etc. This is typical blogger abuse - he wrote something you don/t agree with and now he is the Devil. The world is not black and white to mentally healthy people. Thanks Professor for being a "Stand Up Guy."

Thank you Professor Johnson for making your life (and by extension, other lives) extraordinary by speaking truth to power on both D-I-W and with Stuart Taylor in U-P-I. Thank you for allowing those directly involved, as well as those of us not so directly involved, to share your journey to justice for the wrongfully accused. The ride's been long, many of the roads were not paved, yet you've always kept a steady course.

Dear Professor Johnson, I add to the STANDING OVATION, and the sadness that others are feeling. I'm also addicted to DiW. It has forever changed the way I listen to, or read, news. As a Durham native, I want to applaud you and others who have exposed the rot in this city. There are still very ethical and honest citizens here; but we are in the minority. You have given us a chance. I have had the pleasure of hearing you speak twice, and must say, you are just as eloquent and powerful in person as you are on this blog. You are a Hero, KC. Godspeed!Sharyn

Despite being an "obscure professor," KC did his own job while also doing the work others should have done.

KC was the professor who cared enough to speak out in the best traditions of the academy while Duke's own professors were silent. An alarming number of other Duke professors actually abetted the persecution of their own students based on a dangerous and narrow ideology bolstered by dubious and false scholarship.

KC's honest and thorough reporting, research, and writing stood in stark contrast to a national mainstream media effort that was characterized by journalists rushing to judgement using a false narrative and trying to outdo each other in their condemnation of three innocent young men.

Some of the issues raised by KC's work here will go beyond the scope of this Blog, and his effort will forever be viewed as a seminal point in citizen journalism.

the idea that the group of 88 will be justifiably villified by HBO movie has them on edge

they cant take the scrutiny that will come from an examination of their MOTIVES and the backdrop of USELESS departments that cater to the whims of an academic culture that have created no JOBS that produce positive tax revenue

Coleman's letter shouldn't surprise anyone. I believe he is positioning himself to succeed Brodhead; he will need faculty support if he takes this position.

I also believe that a better measure of the conduct of the Duke faculty is the quick settlement reached with the three falsely-accused lacrosse players. Had the university taken this case to court, the discovery (e.g. megabytes of faculty emails) would likely have been devastating.

The methodical acretion of fact, the judicious of tone, the openness to correction and commentary, all these qualities accumulated over 18 months of truly extraodinary and disinterested labor speak for themselves. Dissenters who take on this blog, even decent ones like Professor Coleman, must come armed with better ammunition than generalizations about the good intentions of the Duke faculty and administration.

Thank you KC, for the work you have done.This appears, based on the staggering number of people that read and followed your posts - to have been a project you started that may have taken more work than you dreamed of, but led to great success - both for you and for your helping justice.And I imagine the thank yous! you received from the Lacrosse players, their families, their lawyers, and key people in the case that did the right thing are the thank yous! you appreciate the most.

Just my opinion, but I see two long-term professional positives emerging from this case for you and your writings:

1. DIW will be studied and mentioned by media experts and legal people as one of the early examples of an Internet Site run by a very talented person that in many ways supplanted national media and punditry and various elected leaders as the place to go to learn and contribute (via comment feedback) about a national story.I see more of these single-purpose blogs emerging in the future. Not just as info clearinghouses, but as active participants in the process.

2. The superb job you did will increase your national visibility, earnings from outside the university - and increase, not decrease your academic standing - not just as a scholar, but as a powerful advocate for academic reform.

James Coleman is being lambasted in no uncertain terms in the Comments section of his letter today, though most posts are reasonably civil and factual. They are also ANGRY. Really ANGRY. I am getting the impression that the Colemans, et al, are trying to keep the lid on the pot and it is just going to boil over and explode. I also wonder if Coleman's letter is a consequence of the (also angry) comment by Economics Professor Weintraub in the Chronicle last evening. He withdrew it after feedback from colleagues (and I can imagine what that feedback was). I would not want to be a member of the Duke faculty right now.

It is Prof. Coleman's privilege to praise his boss, especially now, when Brodhead's leadership is challenged from various perspectives. Coleman's criticism of UPI, in my opinion has no merit.I stumbled onto this blog last spring and became addicted to it. As someone earlier stated, my dailky routine starts with DIW, coffee, more reqading, DIW.. etc.I would like to thank you but, I really don't know how to, in order to stand out amidst those who have written earlier and English is only my second language.You, Professor Johnson, have not only revealed the truth and shortened the agony of the three players and their family, you have taught us enormously. For me, born and educated in a Communist country and still learning about this country, this blog has meant a continuous lesson, a course in justice and the protecton of our civil rights.Your book and reading the commentaries posted above have enriched me intelectually and I probably have become a citizen, more aware of my civil rights and how a vicious and corrupt but powerful DA can ruin one's life.Nicole P.Hamden, CT

"From the start, I have rejected using the word "hero" on anyone. People either did the right thing or they didn't. No real harm--except the potential harm to Reade, Collin, and David--was going to come to anyone just by doing the right thing."

By that definition, I think Elmostafa really did earn the title "hero." He took a real risk of being railroaded by the corrupt Durham/NC legal system for the sake of the truth and a guy he didn't know.

KC, I started reading your blog from day one and look forward to reading your Monday postings soon. I like to thank you, along with the Friends of Duke University (FODU), Liestoppers, JinC and many others, for exploring this case and literally saving the lives of three innocent young college students. Thank you for your tireless and amazing work; thank you for your extraordinary effort. You have the utmost respect and admiration of so many of us. We sincerely appreciate you.

Dr. Helen Blog Reading KC’s book, blogs her good comments, “…his book should be used in academic classes everywhere but fat chance of that. I do think, however, it is important to support this book and those like it that present information that the MSM will not cover“.

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2007/08/men-rape-and-injustice.htmlInteresting excerpts:…There is a very discernable shift from a pro women to anti men movement …

…There is mention that the Duke women were as horny as the guys there with more than one sorority on campus hiring male strippers (page 2) but this was never picked up in the media (of course not, male strippers for women are considered empowerment, while for men they're sexist)…

KC is right about his endorsement of the president. He stood and applauded loudly, and was one of the last people to take his seat following President Brodhead's address to the conference at Duke Law last week.

If anybody has reassessed their standing (ahem) it was KC himself who applauded Duke's president. And it wasn't an unanimous ovation. Other remained seated.

I will stick by my use of the word "heroic" to describe what Professor Coleman has done in this case. He was about the only lawyer in Durham to figuratively punch Nifong in the nose while Nifong was still the most powerful person in Durham County. As far as I know, he was the ONLY one to do so pro bono. I just think Professor Coleman is wrong in this instance. If we learned anything from this experience, isn't it that nothing is just black or white? _________________

KC:

What a great service you have performed for your profession and country. You also provided your readers and commentators with a great, free education. Thank you!

Our eyes were opened to fundamental problems in the media, the justice system, the academy and with race politics. I knew about some of the problems with the justice system, but I still learned a ton. As for the other problems, I had no idea it was that bad.

You have also shown the way to a new information paradigm. Along with Liestoppers, TalkLeft, JinC and Johnsville, a new age was born. It was exciting to watch this happen and comforting to know that people were doing this and not watching "Two and a Half Men."

The fact that you were also able to help Collin, Dave & Reade must be a huge bonus. In salute, my favorite "Johnsonism," a series that K.C. has put up with like a true, very patient gentleman:

"When K.C. Johnson invented biscuits and the word ‘biscuit’ to describe them, he took special glee in knowing that the English would enjoy a hearty chuckle when they asked Americans if they wanted a biscuit with their tea, but that the Americans would have the last laugh when they asked Englishmen if they wanted chicken gravy on their biscuits.” THE NEW YORKER (Sept. 2007).

Runner-up:

"K.C. Johnson speaks in a frequency only animals can hear. That is why they do his bidding. What you are hearing is telepathy." New England Journal of Holistic Medicine (Aug. 2007). MOO! Gregory_________________

My hunch is that there is some intramural squabbling within the walls of Duke about how to fix this mess and whose going to do it and why didn't they fix it earlier, etc. Coleman and the other fellow (whose name I instantly forgot since he was such an important factor prior to the letter to the Chronicle) surely are feeling some pressure.

My guess Ralph is that other people suggested to him that making public *charges* made against faculty, rather than claims that were actually found to be true was a very bad idea. The phrase he used was "verified complaints." That doesn't mean folks were found guilty, only that "verified complaints" were filed.

Publicizing such things seems to be stooping to the level of presuming guilt that hasn't been proved. It wouldn't surprise me if he heard from the very top that the University Counsel didn't think it was a good idea to be saying things like that in public. And the Counsel would be right.

I totally understand the motivation behind what he did, and reminding his colleagues that they have skeletons in their closets is very effective, but this was not the way to do it.

I would be remiss if I did not add my words of thanks for your contributions on this blog. It has been a truly eye-opening experience. Before DIW, I was aware of blogs and their potential power, mostly from the Dan Rather downfall, but I never comprehended the actual power until I became a regular lurker here at DIW. I got my start from reading the Coleman report from cover-to-cover because I had felt from the beginning that Pressler was a scapegoat. At the time, I also could not intellectually accept that a prosecutor could or would perpetrate such a hoax. It did not take me long to see the truth from DIW, and no thanks to MSM.

I want to make a couple of points that I have been ruminating over the past months that I am going to share as you wind down.

First and foremost, there is no doubt in my mind that blogs are now a bulwark of democracy. Finally, there is a democratic check-and-balance to MSM. DIW is a prototype.

My second point results from introspection over the robust debate over the G88. I have been troubled for some time with the inevitable consequences of naked "diversity" and "multiculturalism." Basically, when militantly and stridently implemented and pursued, they create a new form of entrenched racism and bigotry. I experienced this first hand. As a parent, I took great pride in raising my children as color-blind and unprejudiced as possible. I preached acceptance and equality. I viewed it as my social responsibility to do what I could to rid society of the lingering effects of racism and bigotry. One of my seemingly highly qualified children was shut out of Ivy League schools. However, a diverse HS classmate whose SATs were over 300 points lower and whose GPA was a full 1.5 lower was accepted at Harvard. This one episode destroyed my 18 years of teaching. Not only did this imbue him with enormous resentment. Even worse, he now presumes that any minority in a position of responsibility is really unqualified and got there by unjustified preferential treatment. So now we have a new generation with a new form of institutional stereotyping if not bigotry. We as a society are moving backwards and our educators and editors are clueless. And when the diversity proponents become as radicalized and militant as the Duke G88, we have more divisiveness and racial unrest than ever. Every day I am saddened by how deep we are relapsing in race relations.

My most fervent hope and prayer is that your systematic exposure of the Duke problems will act as a clarion call, a catalyst to a groundswell that will ultimately swing the pendulum away from the radical extreme.

This is not a case of ambiguity where you get to go back and choose a la carte where you take a stand on the various elements of the case.

Truth is, Coleman's letter to the N&O that KC made such a big deal about long ago was a carbon copy of what I had already had printed as a letter weeks before.

The fact that I and others might have thought his words at the time counted for something, and the fact that I had slowly come closer to KC's POV in wanting to make Coleman into something that he is not, makes his current behavior even more sleazy in my eyes.

Coleman is from Charlotte, NC.--a hotbed of past racial unrest with regard to their school system.

He is a reasonably smart man; however, at the time he was in school and was scooped up from that Southern town to attend Harvard.....there is no way he would have even been considered except for his race.

AA working overtime.

When we discuss Coleman, we are not discussing a true intellect such as Thomas Sowell.

He, no doubt has been meandering and negotiating and obfuscating his way around this kind of thing forever.

Coleman is a player.

At this point I am so repulsed that I am holding off contacting him--something that I certainly intend to do. I am going to bring up every issue that I have brought up here.

Who gives a damn if he thinks he's teflon Jim?

When he wants to effectively call KC a liar....after all the undue largesse KC tossed his way, he will hear about his cowardice.

James Coleman sat back and benefited from all the praise that was thrown his way.

I'll be damned if he is going to now throw s*** on all of KC's work and what we all know to be the truth.

Right now, I see very little difference from his manipulation of the truth than that of Irving Joyner.

" He stood and applauded loudly, and was one of the last people to take his seat following President Brodhead's address to the conference at Duke Law last week."

That is a depressing report.

What was your objective in posting it?

My senses tell me that KC's view of everything will begin to change as people like James Coleman begin to show the kinds of characters they are.

Big Jim waited to attack KC after his very positive portrayal in the book. That's how a bum operates...playing every side for personal advantage.....relinquishing little.

Indeed, I wish KC had not stood for the ovation. His positive assessment of Brodhead's "apology" was the real reason I chose not to go over to the Regulator last weekend--something to which I had been looking forward.

But, hey......we all do things that later turn out to be....not such a good idea.

On the other hand, in that particular environment--the conference--it is my considerable Diva opinion that KC was trying very hard to end this blog and his experience in Durham on a positive note.

Unfortunate that cowards and endless-largesse-receiving James Coleman did not allow that to happen.

"James Coleman is a hero - Doubt he is worried about his job, etc. This is typical blogger abuse - he wrote something you don/t agree with and now he is the Devil. The world is not black and white to mentally healthy people. Thanks Professor for being a "Stand Up Guy."

Only someone who has been brought up to believe that you do not have to stand by your words, and only someone who is so accustomed to using the system and other people to create a comfort zone for themselves would do anything but give these comments a shrug and a laugh.

You provide Exhibit A--along with hop-along Coieman--that many people are life's users.

Parasites.

I live in a world where right and wrong do not change when the sun goes down.

I live in a world where if I tell someone that I will do something.....I will die to get it done...just because I gave them my word.

Life is very short. You take away valuable time from another person when you waste their time with obfuscation and untruths.

Sometimes that candor is painful, but not nearly as painful as deceit and mendacity.

Professor Coleman is looking out for himself and that big paycheck......the new law school "Innocence Project" (for minorities, effectively)....and a cushy position for his bird-face wife that she would most certainly not have secured without the game-playing Coleman.

So save your rotten value system for third-rate losers who do not value honesty.

I suspect that if KC and Coleman had been speaking in person then they would quickly have realized that they were in fact in agreement with each other.

I do not think Coleman or KC would say that the Coleman Committee's report made the players out to be flawless human beings. But it did make them out not to be the racist, sexist monsters they had been painted as in the media. Did the Coleman Committee note a team problem with alcohol? Yes, they did. Did they note that this alcohol problem was associated with some criminal behavior? Yes. But there's a big difference between the kind of person who'll pee in someone else's flowerbed and the kind who'll commit a violent thirty-minute group rape. The Coleman Committee went looking for any sign of young men of the latter type and found none; in that sense, there is no denying the players were vindicated.

Because he is a reasonable and honorable man. He is able to acknowledge that things said in the anger of the moment are best retracted if they imflame the situation instead of improving it.

I doubt very much that whatever advice he got from colleagues was the kind of pressure that some here and on the Chronicle's board are speculating about. Rather, his friends on the faculty -- most likely in Econ -- pointed out that the outburst was out of character and not in line with his usual constructive approach to these issues.

I just want to join the chorus thanking you for your work and dedication in this case. My kids are just on the threshhold of college, and it is frightening enough, without having to worry about sending them into a hostile environment.

I have never even considered following a blog, but this has been an absolute pleasure and addiction. Your intellect, honesty and fairness have restored some of my faith in the academy.

I also want to thank many of the regular posters on this site. I have especially appreciated Prof. Horwitz's insights.

Thank you, and happy trails._________________

I also join Inman in seconding Gregory at 3:29. Prof. Coleman stood up when it counted, and at significant professional risk. The wrongfully accused are no longer in peril, and Prof. Coleman has to consider his duties and obligations to Duke.

My pet peeve is when reporters solicit comments from attorneys representing parties in litigation. Folks, the attorneys have a job to do, and giving candid opinions (i.e., without considering their client's interests) would be unethical.

I don't know exactly how Prof. Coleman's ethical obligations fall in this case, but I don't fault him for trying to defend his Duke.

Some college professors have been speaking out against radical professors. Alan Kors said this years ago:“The universities cannot defend in public the double-standards they practice in private.”

The article below written in 1999, describes the G-88 as we see them today. What happened at Duke is not new. It has been gaining ground for years, and some of us simply did not pay attention.Alan Charles Kors - professor….. The Betrayal of Liberty on American Campuses

Excerpts: “The problem of American universities today is not students but the arrogance, wickedness and cowardice of the adults who teach them there.”

“The so-called multiculturalists most decidedly do not mean the deep study and appreciation of conservative Protestant culture, traditional Catholic culture, or black American pentecostal culture, nor of any assimilationist immigrant cultures, nor, to say the least, of white rural Southern cultures. They also do not mean the serious study of West African culture or of Confucian culture, both of which would require linguistic accomplishment and rigorous inquiry to achieve understanding. All that they mean is the appreciation and celebration of those radical intellectuals who think exactly as they do about the nature and causes of oppression wherever they are found and however non-representative they are of the broader groups they allegedly represent.”

Coleman cherry-picked his own report to satisfy a constituency that seeks a pound of flesh from KC and Stuart Taylor. His motive for doing so almost certainly resides in the internal politics of the Duke faculty and administration, and his ambitions within that community.

KC's response reminded me that my valediction to him was incomplete. I spoke of his rectitude and commonsense, but I failed to mention two other qualities that have amazed and impressed me over these past months. First, the prodigious energy he's put into maintaining this blog. And next, notice the response to Coleman. Notice the intellectual rigor KC applies. KC's marshals the facts so well because he knows them so well. And he knows them so well because he approaches the acquisition of knowledge and the process of learning with intellectual rigor, the one indispensable quality of the true scholar.

KC is a true scholar, and his accomplishments so far are only a small taste of all he'll surely accomplish before all is said and done.

The tragedy is that while KC may be on a level all his own, many true scholars -- just below his level -- are being excluded or driven from academia in America today. It's a national crisis that has to be addressed.

Sigh. Just when I think things can't get lower around here, we have Coleman being called an affirmative action hire and a liar equivalent to Joyner simply because he had the nerve, imagine the nerve, to criticize Debrah's Sainted KC.

Like the LAX boys, Coleman is not perfect, but he was a HELL of a lot better than just about everyone else on the Duke faculty, and his report was a model of diligence and fairness. To criticize him in the terms you did Debrah is just completely and utterly unfair.

Sorry to say there are no "perfect heroes" or "perfect villains" here. Just a bunch of imperfect human beings, some trying to do their best and others trying to do their worst. Coleman is one of the good guys, and for you to let the perfect be the enemy of the good is to set up an impossible standard of moral approval.

Don't you see how you are completely playing into the hands of KC's critics by painting yourself into a corner with arguments like that? Calling Coleman those sorts of names is, IMO, a complete loss of perspective that undermines any good that is done when you criticize those who really deserve it.

Professor - Reading this blog has been enlightening, infuriating, and uplifting, sometimes all at the same time. I'm a high school English teacher with 29 years behind me and a few left to go. I love the young men and women I encounter every day. Sometimes, of course, they drive me to distraction because they are young and, like all of us, imperfect. How people who are teachers could behave in the revolting fashion the 88 did, and continue to do, is beyond me. Thank you for your Herculean efforts; it has been quite an experience. Now I'm going to crack open your book. Best wishes for a safe, fruitful stay in Israel. Thank you. JLW in Ohio

Please allow one more set of "Thank You's" to be added to the accolades.

Thank You for all of the hard work you've put into your research.

Thank You for all the long hours writing your blog entries and reading/moderating the many thousands of comments.

Thank You for providing an intellectually honest, fact-based analysis of the case itself, and of the underlying atmosphere of Political Correctness and Groupthink that have taken root at Duke University.

Thanks to both you and Mr. Taylor for "Until Proven Innocent". The professional reviewers have raved about it, with good reason. Now we see the PC-crowd at Duke getting all in a snit and circling the wagons because their behavior has been exposed for what it really is.

Thank You for providing inspiration to this Duke alum. to stop sitting on the sidelines regarding the future of the University. For 25 years I've watched Duke slide down the slope of Political Correctness, and have felt rather powerless to do anything about it. Before your book and blog, there was little hard evidence regarding what was going on behind the scenes with some of the faculty & their PC-activism. You've now provided the fact base. If there is one good thing that may come out of this whole sorry affair, it is that there appear to be a number of Duke alumni who are fed up and not going to take it any more.

For years now, I have thought to myself that there is no way I would send my children to my alma-mater. Like everyone's kids, they deserve the chance to explore and learn and be free of faculty coercion and "groupthink". While only a small percentage of the Duke faculty is like the G-88, I am not prepared to pay to send them to a school where even one of their professors would grade them based on "think as I think". Since the trend now is to have many required courses in "diverse" areas, it would be nearly impossible to not be stuck in a G-88-thinkalike class. My final Thank You is for now giving me hope that we alumni can turn the tide and reverse the virus that PC/groupthink has become on campus.

KC, you mentioned somewhere that some of the comments on DIW have been vile.

Please elaborate.

Which is worse?

"Vile" words chronicling reality or vile behavior?

People in the laughably overblown academy can protest all they wish; however, Coleman's behavior now borders not only on the absurd......but it borders on the most dishonest behavior I have seen in a while.

Oh wait!

I seem to recall something similar happening around Duke and Durham in the Spring of 2006.....from professors, no less.

It never ceases to amaze how the act of lying has become so acceptable among the unwashed masses of the academy.

Stephen Horwitz said: "Sigh. Just when I think things can't get lower around here, we have Coleman being called an affirmative action hire and a liar equivalent to Joyner simply because he had the nerve, imagine the nerve, to criticize Debrah's Sainted KC."

Steve, I don't think it's fair to judge the group by the biggest extremist in it. Expecting Debrah to give a nuanced reaction to anything is like expecting Gottlieb to act like an honest and professional police officer -- why on earth would they start now?

KC -I have been reading your blog twice daily since I became aware of it sometime in the fall of 2006. As as I see it, You have accomplished two wonderfult things: you have helped exonerate three innocent people falsely accused by a prosecutor who, for an extra $15,000 a year in pension money, would have sent each of them to prison for 30 years; secondly you have exposed the moral rot and faux scholarship of the gender/race/poverty studies at major universities engendered by the search for 'diversity.' Finally, I might add, you have given this libertarian conservative hope that there continue to be "liberals" out there who are not blinded by their political leanings, and so, can maintain a sense of balance and justice. You are an inspiration and role model for us all. Godspeed and good luck.

I have used the word "heroic" to describe Professor Coleman's early work in the case. That will ALWAYS be true. I completely disagree with his latest as it is illogical and lacks any proof. There are many excellent refutations of Coleman on the Chronicle website and on this blog.

One of Professor Coleman's main arguments is that you cannot judge an entire professoriate based upon a few actions. I agree with that thesis, but I fail to see how you can stop there. I can use Professor Coleman's thesis to make my point:

GOD: My creation "Man" is a fine animal!

DEVIL: What about John Wayne Gacy?

GOD: I won't judge Man based only on him.

DEVIL: Well, then, what about Dahmer?

GOD: I won't judge Man based only on him, either.

DEVIL: But what are you going to do about them?

GOD: Nothing. They're your problem now.

Yes, most of the Duke faculty is learned, likes their students and didn't attempt to lynch innocent kids. On the other hand, some of them did. The ones who did need to be judged. MOO! Gregory

I concur with Horowitz (9:20) post. We all know you have valuable insight into local information and adore KC. It doesn't mean that Prof.Coleman is the devil incarnate that he took KC's view of academia as too harsh and possibly unfair to the majority of hard working, sincere prof's. I've been following for about a year> Prof. Coleman did a great job with the committee. I love KC for his continued unequivocal support of the lax team and esp. the three. I love him for calling out the G88 & the administration; but IMO both KC and Coleman are doing their best and speaking the truth they see it. You can disagree without tearing the other person down. Besides, KC can take care of himself. Obviously, his light is still shining so bright some are trying to re-write history to place themselves in a better light. Prof Coleman has to survive at Duke, we don't what may be going on within the ranks. I believe it will be especially tough when the movie comes out. Most people who have kids in or near college range know there is a lot of drinking and poor choices made on the road to maturity. We didn't know there were so many faculty and administrators who dislike their own students while taking their parents money. Prof. Coleman can't change what truth we now know.

Your point is well taken: "Apologies are nice. Sometimes they are vital. But when they are forced they do not really accomplish what they were intended to do, which is to RESTORE broken relationships.

We need to cool it awhile. Watch. Pray, if you're so inclined. Speak when it can make a difference. But STOP throwing more coals on the fires."

There was a golden moment for reconciliation at Duke, when the extent of Nifong's perfidy became clear.

The problem is this: The G88 and their sycophants do not understand that they were out of line. They are not seeking reconciliation in any way, shape or form. They are going to pursue their racist and sexist agendas at Duke. It has paid off for them so far, with the silencing of Baldwin, Lange, and the CYA settlement from the administration and BOT. There is some very serious pathology at work here. You can see it in the tone of the all too frequent nanny-nanny-boo-boo posts of Anonymous the pot-boiler. Just pathetic.

Am I wrong?? I hope so. Please step up to the mike, folks, and have your say. Prove me wrong.

Thanks for all your excellent work on this case, KC. I first became interested in this case when I became aware that Nifong had tried to suppress the DNA evidence, and my interest deepened as I read more about the appalling behavior of the G88. Their behavior had particular resonance to me because as a graduate student in one of the so-called "soft sciences" (really more like humanities) I could all too easily see several of the faculty and students in my own department behaving the exact same way in a similar situation, and how frighteningly easy it would be to get swept up in the groupthink and hysteria. I continue to remain disgusted but sadly, not surprised, at the G88's refusal to apologize for their actions.

Your blog was vital to me in learning more about the facts of this case, and your careful work and meticulous documentation are surely deserving of a Pulitzer. I've bought your book Until Proven Innocent and plan on getting copies of it for my friends in the future. Best of luck to you in your new endeavors.

Professor Coleman is a hero, gentleman, scholar and brilliant. Ragging on him, only demonstrates the meaness and uglyness in the ragger's heart and soul. If you would abandon the Professor for this simple letter, you would abandon anyone. I would not want you on my team.

"If you would abandon the Professor (Coleman) for this simple letter, you would abandon anyone. I would not want you on my team."

Your entire premise is faulty. This is not about "teams".

Please be advised that the Gang of 88 and their ilk harbor extreme animosity and envy toward any kind of sport. Better avoid the appearance of a team. LOL!

I have nothing but sympathy for those in this case who attempted to make an entire feature of the concept of "heroes". That's an understandable human response to someone doing something positive---the right thing---although, now more than ever, we see its hyperbole.

Many of those "heroes" are already back to supporting the same old corrupt regime in Durham.

Professor Coleman, as Stuart Taylor so succinctly stated, has now run dry on wisdom.

If children are watching all of this, what lessons are they learning?

KC is an extraordinary scholar and human being. The record remains clear...and his record remains unchanged. It stands the test of time.

Unfortunate that so many other players in this saga do not have the same record.

It was not my intention to reveal, for those in need of fantasies, that there is no Santa Claus.

You don't have to shoot those who are on YOUR side, but choose a different approach to solve the problems. I am not some pathetic slob, just stumbling through the world. I am a QUITE successful business woman, and at the top of my field. I just do not think that incendiary words are the same as logic.

I am quite willing to fight for right and to expose wrong, and have participated rather forcefully at times on this blog, and others.

I was a Durham resident, and a Duke graduate and have done quite well raising three successful children and six grandchildren.

You have NO right to attack others for the way they express their view points.

We are fighting the same battle for the recovery of academic freedom and student protections at Duke. Let's focus on the ENEMIES, not colleagues who speak with different voices. Voices in a choir sing from the same songsheet, but not the same lines.

I don't agree that the case is "horrifying" compared to other cases of prosecutorial malfeasance; perhaps, compelling would be a better word. Nifong isn't the only joker in the pack and reverse racism is hardly the only game at the casino.

"You have NO right to attack others for the way they express their view points."

You make my point for me.

You should know that this whole issue began with my being atacked on this blog for expressing my views--not on another poster, but on the Duke matter at hand--which you now tell me is the right of everyone.

This is typical.

Just because my responses to those attacks which started this little spat might seem more pointed than my detractors', does not take MY rights away to express them.

I hope you understand that freedom of speech and expression does not end just because one form might obliterate better than the other.

You cannot appreciate--and you do not have to--my disgust with people like James Coleman and how for such people right and wrong are moving targets....defined only by advantageous circumstances.

Some posters have no trouble with that. Others do. We express it. If my expressions are attacked as they were by the same "professors" who have pulled such tactics over and over on me, then I respond.

Lastly, Coleman's background and his way of handling himself as he negotiated his way up the academic ladder are quite relevant.

I hope your support for freedom of speech can include the rights of the Diva.

You have no "right" to free speech on KC's blog. You are allowed to speak by his willingness to approve your comments. This is "private property" and thus no such right exists. It's a privilege.

And when people suggest you are going over the top or being cruel to someone who has suffered a great loss and REQUEST (yes, go back and look, it was a REQUEST to change the subject), that does not infringe upon any right or privilege you have. It's a criticism and a request and a suggestion that you are abusing the privilege he has granted you. None of us, and certainly not me, are infringing on your "right" to free speech. We have no such power and you have no such right. After all, you're still posting your thoughts, no? Where's the restriction on your speech?

So stop playing the martyr here. Cut the melodrama. It's not all about you, as much as you might want it to be. Just deal with criticism and requests to change the subject with a little bit more rationality.

Why is it that I can go for days without posting or saying a word about you, but you're still taking shots at me? Obsess much?

Your passion for this whole saga and for the incredible contribution that KC has made to the unraveling of the conspiracy are evident... and appreciated.

Speak all you wish, however you wish.

But I think it keeps the discussions at a higher level if we discuss issues, rather than slamming how somebody expresses themselves.

I don't need to prove to you that I am not the kind of person that is "what is wrong with this world". As a matter of fact, my personal contributions would show otherwise.

So don't slam my personal worth just because I see the same elephant from a different viewpoint. I detest the same injustices you do.

Gotta go. Will severely miss DIW and all of your contributions for 2 weeks while in Europe. Gonna catch some fresh air and visit the Alps and remember that this whole fiasco is not the first such example of human injustice, or will it be the last.

When the air clears my head and my spirit, I shall return, take up my post, and continue to do my part to make my corner of the world a bit better.

Salutations Professor Johnson for your newest reward! You have certainly become a literary paragon, and have set the standards for future generations to follow. I commend you for your dedication and professionalism. May God continue to bless you, and look forward to more of your literary satire!Respectfully,Rhonda Fleming

Agree totally! I read ALL of the comments. It's curious that certain posters can make NUMEROUS personal shots at other posters (which have been approved by KC through the comment moderation -- so KC agrees with these petty posts on this DIW blog). Sadly this is when KC's DIW "Jumped The Shark"!

I do not censor comments on the basis of their editorial line. For instance, virtually every thread has several lengthy comments criticizing me, sometimes in harshly personal terms. It would seem rather odd to suggest that I "approved" of such comments, or that I "agreed" with them.

As I have announced on many occasions, I refuse to post comments that are (1) clearly off-topic; (2) clearly racist or vile; or (3) based on wholly unsubstantiated speculation. I decline comments based on category (3) only very rarely; (1) and (2) slightly more often, but in general clear around 95% of the submitted comments.

It's hard to say of what commenters you speak re "numerous PERSONAL potshots"--most people comment anonymously, which is their right, but which, by definition, precludes their receiving "personal" potshots of any kind.

This blog has nearly 900,000 words in my own voice. If that total isn't sufficient to give you a sense of what I believe, then I suggest the problem is on your end, not mine.

Friday, October 05, 2007(Semi-)Hiatus For the last 408 days, this blog has had (at least) a daily post on the lacrosse case. Today’s is the final such post. For the next several weeks, I’ll be doing weekly posts to wrap up some of the themes and events of the blog as new developments (civil suit negotiations, the election) warrant. These posts will appear on Mondays, through October and into November.

As of October 10th, you had 4 more posts after this one. That's almost one per day.

Google scholar: “It provides a search of scholarly literature across many disciplines and sources, including theses, books, abstracts and articles.” http://scholar.google.com/Search: “Robert David Johnson”

Google Image search: The most comprehensive image search on the web http://images.google.com/Search : Duke protest, for a broad search. Zoom in on the Black Panthers picture, just to be reminded of the horror three young men faced.

Google Blog seach: Find blogs on your favorite topicshttp://blogsearch.google.com/ Search: Bull City in Wonderland. Two days ago, I never heard of the Bull City spoof, but there they are.

Google Video: BetaSearch: Duke protest. The potbangers are there. There is view of related videos at the top. CNN Nancy Grace Blooper video (Rape stats) is as good as ever.

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review